Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Four Biology Professors at Emory University Wrote This Letter Full of Misrepresentations (And More Than a Hundred Other Faculty Signed On)

In an astonishing example of anti intellectualism four biology professors at Emory University, joined by hundreds of faculty, researcher and student signatories, wrote an incredible letter to the editor full of blatant scientific misrepresentations. Here are the more blatant misrepresentations.

If there was any doubt about the professor’s intent it is quickly dispelled in the first paragraph where the reader encounters the bizarre claim that “science rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.” It would be difficult even to know where to begin with such a claim. To say it is false would be a compliment.

Later the letter makes the false claim that “The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.” If that wasn’t enough, the professors attempt to justify this claim, but they just make matters worse.

First, they make the circular claim that “ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate.” That, of course, simply begs the question. Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place. Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are “transitional.” Philosophers call this a “theory-laden” observation.

Next, the professors dig another hole by making the erroneous claim that “the processes by which organisms evolve new and more complex body plans are now known to be caused by relatively simple alterations of the expression of small numbers of developmental genes.” No clever fallacy here, that is simply false. There is no such knowledge and, as life scientists, it would be incredible if the professors did not know this.

Next the professors make the false conclusion that evolution is as well supported as gravity. They write: “The theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.” Again this is false. But it is so blatantly untrue that one hardly knows how to respond. It would be like a physics professor saying perpetual motion is as well supported as breathing. What could they possibly be thinking?

Finally, the professors hypocritically equate evolution with all of science and critical thinking. They write: “Dismissing evolution disregards the importance of science and critical thinking to society.” This sentiment reveals the underlying dogma. For these professors, and the hundreds of signatories, are displaying a lack of critical thinking and an anti intellectualism that is disturbing. If we’re not allowed to dismiss the non scientific dogma that all of biology arose spontaneously, then we’re all in trouble.

91 comments:

Re: “The theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.” [Emory U letter against eminent JHU neurosurgeon and Christian, Ben Carson, in the context where he raised questions on the ethics of evolution.]

1: Which theory of gravitation? Newton's? That was seen as universal c 1680 - 1916, but is now in effect a classical limiting case. In short, it was precisely a case of an inductive generalisation subject to correction and limitation -- just as Newton himself implied in Principia.

2: Which theory of evolution, at what level? The theory of minor changes by breaking working DNA code? Trivial. The grand metaphysics-laden narrative of the origin of body plans per Darwin et al? That is an inference to explanation of a remote, unobserved deep past, on observations and signs in the present. But if such an approach were to be consistently applied, it would lead us to infer that design is the pivotal cause of the functionally specific, complex organisation and associated (often, digitally coded and algorithmic) information used to construct body plans.

3: Of course, some diseases -- per direct observational support, are caused by micro-organisms, but many others are not.

4: As to the question of the ethical challenges of evolutionary materialism -- note the restricted descriptive term, serious concerns on that score go back to Plato in The Laws, Bk X, where he warned against pretentiousness, radical relativism, a concept that "the highest right is might," and the consequent rise of ruthless, manipulative domineering factions.

In short, we see here an empty ideological talking point being used to try to improperly ostracise and lock out a distinguished Christian voice -- one who defied the odds of his environment as a child -- from the university as market place of ideas.

Isn't your post seeking to improperly ostracize and lock out some of distinguished members of the Emory faculty's voice from the university as the marketplace of ideas?

Nowhere in the letter was there a call it disinvite the speaker,only to voice their opinion of his views, and express a contrary view. Exactly what you desire,you should be delighted . A marketplace of ideas.

And this lockout of his "Christian voice".His freedom to exercise his religion is intact,but the ideas espoused by a religion are as open to discussion and disagreement as any other ideas.

Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle - Casey Luskin - September 2011 Excerpt: Ignoring fraudulent fossils like Piltdown man, the last 50 years have seen a slew of so-called human ancestors which initially produced hype, and were later disproven. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/hominid_hype_and_the_election_050801.html

“Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”Anthropologist Ian Tattersall(curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

The claim that evolution is as well proven as gravity is ludicrous. To make this point clear. I drop a ball off a roof and the ball falls to the earth, bingo gravity remains intact as a theory. Yet if I apply natural selection to dogs by dropping them off a roof, and repeating this process with the offspring of dogs that happen to survive the drop, I will never get a dog that grows wings and flies off the roof.

ID is too big a tent. Some ID supporters acknowledge that evolution does take place, albeit in "trivial" cases, others go all the way to deny it entirely. Is Hunter in the latter group? He never tells and I doubt that we will ever find out.

So oleg, you agree with kairosfosus's points on 1 and 2??? especially 2???

'if such an approach were to be consistently applied, it would lead us to infer that design is the pivotal cause of the functionally specific, complex organisation and associated (often, digitally coded and algorithmic) information used to construct body plans.'

I certainly agree with him on point 1. But it isn't about me, is it, Phil? I'd like to see Cornelius react to Gordon's point 2 and either agree with him that evolution does take place (albeit in "trivial" amounts) or disagree and claim that evolution does not happen, no way. It will be fun either way.

But alas it is about you, for you are the one claiming that neo-Darwinian processes can generate unfathomed levels of complex functional information without one shred of solid empirical evidence that can be done by purely material processes. And yet, despite this fatal lack of empirical validation for you own belief, you want to question another persons belief? It is simply ludicrous for you to think you have a right to criticize anyone!

Oleg: It should be quite well known, that for web spam and harassment reasons, I have requested that my personal names not be used online. Or do you wish to align yourself with the outing tactics of hate sites and their denizens? Also, please note my allusion to Behe [and others] in my point 2 supra. KF

"The claim that evolution is as well proven as gravity is ludicrous. To make this point clear. I drop a ball off a roof and the ball falls to the earth, bingo gravity remains intact as a theory. Yet if I apply natural selection to dogs by dropping them off a roof, and repeating this process with the offspring of dogs that happen to survive the drop, I will never get a dog that grows wings and flies off the roof."

Bornagain, are you a POE? Because this is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read.

If that's the stupidest thing you have ever read, apparently you have not read much evolutionary literature, for dropping from heights is precisely the mechanism of natural selection proposed behind the evolution of flight! (no wonder it sounds so stupid to you)

Perhaps, instead of stupid stories like Dawkins just illustrated, Darwinists would care to actually prove their pseudo-science plausible with a demonstration of origination of novel functional protein domains

But when I propose a hypothetical scenario of dropping animals from height to test this ludicrous hypothesis, to see if it is even in the realm of feasibility, all of the sudden this idea, which evolutionists originally proposed themselves, is the stupidest thing ever written? I suppose blatant hypocrisy is just another survival advantage that was selected for in Darwinists!

This is what I don't understand,maybe you can help. If one is sure of the superiority of one's theory, why try to tip the scales with strawman version of your opponents view.

That is a total misunderstanding of the theory,akin to if you leave your hose on overnight, the Grand Canyon will be in your backyard in the morning.Or throwing dogs in water will turn them into seals before your eyes. Instantaneous change is more the providence of creationism,where physical constraints are overcome with the application of divine power.

Evolutionary theory isn't spontaneous no matter how many times CH writes that it is. You should have faith in what you believe,or not. As Oleg says,it is a free world

If Evolutionary theory isn't spontaneous, then why in blue blazes can't we test for the evolution of flight by the method Dawkins maintains that it evolved, by 'selecting' survivors of dropping from height? Or is hypocrisy and lying the only test that I get positive results for in evolutionary theory?

But since you want to do an actual experiment, go for it. First don't throw any animals off the roof. Start small. Start some lizardish creatures,birds are kinda reptilian. Breed these for about five or six hundred years as a warmup. Now you are ready. Set them loose and monitor them for a few thousand years, you might zap them with cosmic rays or cellphone signals to hurry things along,but remember Godzilla. And see if any develop gliding ability.If not rinse and repeat,remember you have millions of years. Then write a paper,riches will ensue

Petition Stand Up to the Bullies, Emory University: Reaffirm Dr. Ben Carson,,,Academic bullying needs to be stopped. Darwinists are trying to stifle views they disagree with by "chilling" the environment for anyone who criticizes evolution. It's nothing more than white shirted intimidation. Click the link below and sign the petition to stand up for academic freedom. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stand-up-to-the-bullies-emory-university-2-2/

“I credit my university with being open to and engaging in these conversations because it’s not having those conversations where that can lead to many dangerous situations in politics and beyond that we see in our country today,” Eisen said."

Open and honest conversation about an actual controversy--whether a commencement speaker who is perceived to equate "evolution with a lack of ethics and morality” speaking before a crowd which includes many researchers who believe in evolution is fair to that community.

You should go to the Emory Wheel, and view the week or so of open and interesting dialogue on the topic. Then scroll down to where this topic gets posted to anti-evolution websites, and note the tone of the creationists who show up.

If you define morality as not committing a felony then these professors have a point... But university campuses are not places of wholesome morality. Far from it. They are places of immorality. They are often hostile to individuals practicing pure Christian morality. It springs from exactly from what Dr Carson is saying. The world from the ivory towers of Emory is different than the real world. Every man is right in his own eyes.

I think we should read Carson as speaking about the dominant Lewontin-style evolutionary materialism that rules the roost in institutional science and the academy, on which what he says is a serious and valid concern. A concern raised ever since Plato in The Laws, Bk X and which we can see echoed in some horrific features of recent history.

Let me cite Provine from the well known Tennessee Darwin Day address of 1998:

>>Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . .>>

Q: Did we hear sharp protests and denunciations from his fellow scientists when Provine said essentially the same thing?

A: Of course not.

I think the undeniable fact that we find ourselves under moral government [the very attacks against Carson make that implicit appeal!] points to a need for a worldview foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT.

Though of course you disagree, neither you nor others of like ilk have ever been able to answer to this issue, ever since Plato raised it.

Given what Provine says, as quoted above, we cannot equate no ultimate foundation for ethics with either "no ethics" or "no ethics beyond personal ethics."

In other words, in a universe without an ultimate foundation of ethics, Person X can still create and adopt a systematic code for social life. What's more, Community X can establish a social code that the community agrees to abide by.

In yet more words, an ultimate foundation of ethics is not a pre-requisite for ethics generally.

"In other words, in a universe without an ultimate foundation of ethics, Person X can still create and adopt a systematic code for social life. What's more, Community X can establish a social code that the community agrees to abide by"

"In yet more words, an ultimate foundation of ethics is not a pre-requisite for ethics generally."

"Correct?"

Correct, but that is valid for Person X and Community X. Maybe Person Y in Community X do not agree with the code adopted by community and pretending to follow the code of the community X adopt a code Y or if it is powerfull he can change by the force or by convincing the of the community by his own code.Also maybe exists a community Y that adopted a moral code that is in conflict with the code of community X. The most powerfull comunity will impose his code. This is darwinism pure.

GEM: >>Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . .>>

That's quite a non-sequitor you have there. Be careful - you might poke someone's eye out with it.

For example, it completely ignores non-justificationist epistemologies, such as critical rationalism, just to start.

What's ironic here is how we're supposed to be the ones that are narrow minded. Yet, here I am pointing out how this is yet another parochial argument.

If one were truly and objectively open to the idea of an abstract designer that has no defined limitations, then this designer could have chosen to create the world we observe 30 seconds ago. As such, you wouldn't have authored the comment I'm responding to. Rather, it would have been authored by this designer, when it created the world we observe 30 seconds ago.

So, creationism is misleadingly named as it's a means of denying that creation took place. This includes the idea that Darwin authored "Of The Origin of Species" or that he was influenced by any sort of religious ideas when it did it.

Of course, for you to see this, you'd have to be genuinely and objectively open to the idea, which apparently, you're not. Which again, is quite ironic.

We agree, then, that we don't need an ultimate foundation of ethics for there to be ethics.

We also agree that people and corporations all seek you use their various means of influence to establish ethical norms and values. This is, of course, the state of the world we live in today.

Finally, we agree that Carson's quote is demonstrably wrong. The laws of your land, the values of your community, and your own personal moral sense all work (sometimes in conflict, perhaps) to influence the behavior you exhibit on a day-to-day basis. Contra Carson, your desires alone do not generally determine your conscience.

From quote below ,Blas, merely the acceptance of evolutionary theory renders both the theist and non theist incapable of ethical foundation. Also any acceptance of the standard cosmological model as well is ethical disaster .

Do you believe a Christian forfeits his religion if he accepts the present theory of planetary formation ?

I agree that science can't prove whether God exists,nor does it. Dr Carson believes that one cannot accept evolutionary theory,cosmology , and believe in God. Those are his words below. Do you agree this is correct?

Let me cite Provine from the well known Tennessee Darwin Day address of 1998:

>>Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent .

The theory of evolution says precisely nothing about a)the existence of a god or gods, b) the possibility of life after death, c) the foundation of ethics, d) the meaning of life or e) free will. If Carson really holds such views then he is as wrong now as Provine was then.

"I agree that science can't prove whether God exists,nor does it. Dr Carson believes that one cannot accept evolutionary theory,cosmology , and believe in God. Those are his words below. Do you agree this is correct?"

I do not know what exactly Carson said and what he means. But the champions of evolutionary and cosmology thinking, like Dawkins or Hopkins agree with Carson. I do not agree in general, but maybe you have to understand what I mean by accept and what mean by ToE.

Even with God subjective morals are possible,unless someone has an objective way to discern God's Rules.

Well, even godless atheists have to eat. Whatever they believe is just that,since there is no scientific proof either way for an immaterial realm.Lately I been wondering if purpose is compatible with free will either. Free will seems to add an element of chance. So even if life has "purpose" it is also at the mercy of chance.

So not only the dreaded atheistic materialists are without ethics,but any other Christian who doesn't believe his(Carson) way is lost in the sea of subjectivity. I guess,objectivity has its price to pay as well

F/N: The basic point of course, is that Provine has publicly said much the same as Carson, and was celebrated for it. I guess the issue looks different when a Christian with a high profile takes notice. And it doesn't stop there, we could document warnings about the opening evolutionary materialist views leave for might makes right nihilism all the way back to Plato in The Laws, Bk X, with plenty of historical warrant. so, yes nice sounding theories of ethics can be set up that do not have an objective foundation for OUGHT, in a worldview basing IS, leaving us in some form or another of might and/or manipulation makes "right." The theories will sound nice and erudite until someone pokes at the foundations and exposes this same fatal crack. And, sorry, the problem is that we too often refuse to learn from history that shows what happens when the door is left open for ruthless nihilistic factions to chip away at the cultural consensus, one stone at a time, until one day the dam fails and a torrent of chaos is let loose until people become willing to accept tyranny to get at least a modicum of order. Alcibiades and the collapse of Athens is only an early stanza on a very long lament. but, even that is a distraction. The real issue is that Carson is saying here little more than many have said, including champions in the evolutionary materialist camp. Why is the same thing suddenly so outrageous when the warning voice happens to be a Christian one? Frankly, just to see the situation unfolding has already answered it for me. All too loud and clear. Good day. KF

PS: CH was hinting of a classic fallacy when he spoke of theory laden observations, one that goes beyond the ever present provisionality and perspective that can be addressed by using comparative difficulties: begging pretty big questions by making the exact censoring a priori evolutionary materialist impositions Lewontin let out of the bag in his well known 1997 NYRB article, and which Johnson lashed in his reply of Nov that year. Please don't pretend that you didn't know this.

Finally, the professors hypocritically equate evolution with all of science and critical thinking. They write: “Dismissing evolution disregards the importance of science and critical thinking to society.” This sentiment reveals the underlying dogma. For these professors, and the hundreds of signatories, are displaying a lack of critical thinking and an anti intellectualism that is disturbing. If we’re not allowed to dismiss the non scientific dogma that all of biology arose spontaneously, then we’re all in trouble.

Has Carson's invitation to deliver the commencement address been withdrawn? Has he been prevented from expressing his views at all? No, I didn't think so.

Carson may well use the platform kindly provided to him by Emory to proclaim his view that evolution is hogwash. The letter basically says that the signatories think that Carson's views on evolution are hogwash.

Both sides are exercising their First Amendment right to free expression. Which is as it should be.

Both sides are exercising their First Amendment right to free expression. Which is as it should be.

No, that most definitely is not the way it should be. Science is not "I get to say anything I feel like, no matter how misrepresentative of the science." That is not OK. Legally, of course, the biology professors can say whatever they like. But scientifically, no, they cannot. Blatant misrepresentations are not OK.

No, that most definitely is not the way it should be. Science is not "I get to say anything I feel like, no matter how misrepresentative of the science." That is not OK. Legally, of course, the biology professors can say whatever they like. But scientifically, no, they cannot. Blatant misrepresentations are not OK.

>> The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . .

[[S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations [--> the issue of the defn of sci, the warrant for sci methods and their limitations is a PHILOSOPHICAL issue, so this locks in indoctrination] and products . . . .

Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence [--> censors science and science education based on a priori naturalism, thence evolutionary materialism] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . .

Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [--> ideological imposition of a limit] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> the authors of this knew or should have known -- this is refusal to do a patent duty of care -- that insofar as ID is implicated, ever since Plato in The Laws Bk X, the issue has been natural vs ARTificial causes, and empirically reliable signs thereof] in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases added.] >>

I think it is fair comment to hold that this constitutes precisely an example of exactly what CH said, suppressing the evidence and the facts in the interests of Lewontinian a priori materialism as an agenda.

The US NAS statement in the same vein and their joint intervention with NSTA in KS, shows that this problem is not just in schools, but in institutional science and the academy.

PS: The US NAS statement in its officially issued pamphlet for educators and interested people:

>> In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. [--> Subtler statement, same meaning as NSTA] Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. [--> A very reasonable definition of natural causes is those tracing to chance and necessity, vs ART-ificial ones, and there are many many ways to reliably distinguish the two on signs, so this snidely insinuates a falsehood relating to Design Theory] Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it. Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing. [--> censors out the whole project of inferring to artificial cause on signs, with implications that have ended up in court, including patent cases of unjust career busting] [[Science, Evolution and Creationism, 2008, p. 10 Emphases added.] >>

vel, since you are so upset that kairos would take a few short posts to set the record straight on atheists self-serving redefinition of the scientific method, a method which can't even be reduced to 'natural' processes in the first place, to conclude answers that are only 'naturalistic' and therefore atheistic, why aren't you equally upset at the many literature bluffs of Darwinists? At least what Kairos writes is true, whereas the tons written by Darwinists is nothing but unsubstantiated fluff!

The deception (literature bluff), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;

The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010http://www.discovery.org/a/14251

Anybody who has debated Darwinists on the internet has probably been 'bombed' by a TalkOrigins FAQ. This podcast reveals the bankruptcy of the actual evidence behind these FAQs and reveals that they are nothing more than literature bluffs;

“The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology

Sorry to upset you,BA. I take it he is not a lawyer,then? Shame to waste the talent especially if those were the short versions of his thoughts.

I take it he believes the Christian is a besieged soul in our secular atheist society. Only able to control two and a half out of three branches of our government. Persecuted by a science which requires actual science. And something about Athens.

Oh yes ,almost forgot,he fact that biologists didn't write a polite letter about something that happened 14 yrs before in a different city, expressing their polite disagreement,therefore forfeiting their right to disagree in perpetuity.

I am interested in your thought how the scientific method should be formulated. Unfortunately your links are difficult to access on my present device,would you explain the gist of your argument?

How about we let the scientific method speak for itself, and lead us where it may, and not impose a-priori that the answer must be a naturalistic/materialistic one???

Steps of the Scientific Methodhttp://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

,,Or is relentlessly pursuing the truth wherever it may lead out of the domain of the scientific method since truth itself is not reducible to material/natural processes??? Methodological Naturalism is simply ludicrous to impose a-priori on the scientific method, especially in these scientific questions of origins!!

Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

CH: No, that most definitely is not the way it should be. Science is not "I get to say anything I feel like, no matter how misrepresentative of the science."

"The science"?

Science is a discipline of problem solving. And, like all problems, it's subject to criticism. That's how we make progress.

However, you seem to be just as confused about the role of criticism in regards to the discipline of solving problems as you are in the role of criticism in regards to theories of biological complexity.

It's as if you cannot recognize mere empiricism as an idea that should be criticized; just as you cannot recognize creationist, pre-enlightenment conceptions of human knowledge as a idea that would be subject to criticism.

The result is that your arguments are parochial, in that they assume science as a discipline cannot make progress at, well, making progress. As such, you assume that no progress has been made and present a straw man of "the science" that is artificially narrow and based on undisclosed presuppositions. Evolution is absurd because pre-enlightenment conceptions of human knowledge are not ideas that are subject to criticism.

However, regardless of how difficult you might find this to believe, science, and progress, doesn't come to a grinding halt because you cannot or refuse to recognize them as such.

Of course, if you have a better explanation for how we make progress, then by all means, please enlighten us.

Otherwise, do not be surprised that the rest of us will continue to make progress, even though you apparently think it's impossible.

No, that most definitely is not the way it should be. Science is not "I get to say anything I feel like, no matter how misrepresentative of the science." That is not OK. Legally, of course, the biology professors can say whatever they like. But scientifically, no, they cannot. Blatant misrepresentations are not OK.

The first point I had intended to make in answer to the above has already been made most effectively by Thorton.

The second point is that I'm sure we all agree that blatant misrepresentations of science should be confronted and exposed wherever they are encountered.

Thus on one side we have Dr Carson who is acknowledged by the letter to be a world-renowned neurosurgeon, philanthropist and Christian. The first two accomplishments stand to his credit, the third may or may not depending on how he practises his faith. None of them, however, qualify him as an authority on the biological theory of evolution.

On the other side, however, we have the authors of the letter who are all members of the Department of Biology. On that basis alone we can assume they are better qualified to comment on Dr Carson's views on evolution than he is to comment on the theory.

More to the point, if, as you imply, scientists should speak out against blatant misrepresentations of their work then the authors of that letter not only had a right but a duty to write as they did if they think Dr Carson is misrepresenting the theory of evolution - which is how it most definitely should be.

Vel, for the sake of argument, let's presuppose that science is about relentlessly pursuing the truth no matter where it leads, instead of presupposing, like you do, that science is about finding materialistic/naturalistic answers no matter what the evidence says; i.e. methodological naturalism. Moreover, for the sake of argument, let's presuppose that mathematics is the 'purest' avenue for men to pursue the truth in science. With those two presuppositions we find out some interesting things: Kurt Godel has shown, in the number 1 mathematical discovery of the 20th century, that mathematics is incomplete;

Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th CenturyExcerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.”http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/

This finding in mathematics is stunning because,,,

THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

And please note 'the circle' formed by the Cosmic Background Radiation:

Picture of CMBRhttps://webspace.utexas.edu/reyesr/SolarSystem/cmbr.jpg

Proverbs 8:26-27While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

Vel, as well please note, from the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang. Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang!!!

"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."(Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - January 2012http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

Moreover, atheists assume that 'randomness' is true (outside the circle) for the ultimate explanation for the origination of the universe, whereas Christian Theists presuppose God is true (outside the circle) for the origination of the universe. Yet insisting on randomness as the ultimate explanation for why the universe came into being leads to the epistemological failure of science:

The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon* In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.* In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.* In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.* Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

Moreover, presupposing 'infinite randomness', as atheists do with the multiverse, actually concedes the necessary premise to make the ontological argument, for God's existence, complete;

God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.7. Therefore, God exists.Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4

Moreover, many modern physicists seem to have forgotten the lesson that was clearly born out by Kurt Godel, that you can't have a 'complete' mathematical theory of everything without assuming God as true, for they are vainly trying to unify Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR), into a mathematical 'theory of everything'. Yet when one allows God into the picture in order to bring 'completeness' to the math, then a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between QM and GR emerges:

Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanicshttps://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated videohttp://vimeo.com/34084462

further notes:

The God of the Mathematicians – GoldmanExcerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered by many to be the greatest mathematician of the 20th century)http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#

BA's entire argument is based on the assumption that God has played a specific role, which we'd need to fill. However, BA does not recognize this as an idea that is subject to criticism.

What's ironic is that BA refers to what amounts to a weak version of Popper's problem of induction (Godel's incompleteness theory) which criticizes justificationism. But then he turns around and appeals to justificationism when he quote scripture to justify his claim that God is complete.

So, justification is a myth, except when it's not. BA recognizes justificationism as an idea, except when he doesn't.

It doesn't get any clearer than this.

However, regardless of how difficult he might find this to believe, progress doesn't grind to a halt because be doesn't recognize his particular assumptions as ideas to be criticized.

In our first presuppose, how do we obtain evidence? Would gut feelings outweigh an experiment? In this scenario would proof be required of evidence? This sounds like a return to an earlier version of science.

I'll check Godel.

Since the cmbr encompasses us,it is not out there, it is everywhere.

Proverbs , reading all of the proverbs 8 if the circle is the cmbr, what are the clouds and the fountains?

I believe there is evidence that the net energy of the universe is zero, but yes our universe appears to have had a beginning. It would not be accurate to say that nothing outside our universe existed prior to the big bang.

We don't know how the universe came about, it may be no more random than gravity. As of now, science can speculate. Only theists claim this knowledge.

Again,randomness is not the only explanation.

Dr GordonPremise1 - unknown if true or falsePremise 2 - what is a random miracle? If all chances are equal,what determines a miracle?Premise 3- ok,Premise 4- science assume regularities, if premise three is correct,since what is rational to an InfiniteBeing is unknown, no assumption of regularities can be made. This if true, makes science useless.

That's it , you need to edit to a manageable length if you wish response

HMM, seeing that I see nothing of any real substance in the response you gave, save for personal philosophical prejudice grasping for straws, and seeing no hint of sound reasoning on your part to arrive at a conclusion, save for your wish to 'get lost' in muddle, I'll let what I wrote stand.

BA77 has implied that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems can be used in argument against the theory of evolution but could they not equally be used as an argument against the Christian idea of God? If BA77's understanding of the theorems is correct then the concept of a necessary god - one that is not contingent on anything outside itself - must be impossible.

Psalm 139:7-14Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

i.e. “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.”http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/

Incompleteness is a principle that applies to all material entities. Please note that this principle also applies to the continued existence of material particles within space-time. i.e. Any material particle you can draw a circle around cannot explain its own continued existence within space-time. This incompleteness principle for material particles has now been born out on the empirical level:

Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:

‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm

i.e. Material particles cannot explain their own continued existence within space-time without referring to a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain their continued existence within space-time.

Of note, Theists have always maintained that God, who is beyond space and time, sustains and upholds this universe in its continued existence, whereas materialists, ever since the Greeks, held that the 'atom' was the foundation of reality i.e. that the material particle was 'self-sustaining'.

Revelation 4:10-11They lay their crowns before the throne and say: "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

It seems that instead of responding on the merits to my illustration to Thorton on just how evolutionary materialist scientism harms science, science education and society, you have chosen to label and dismiss.

That failure to address matters on the merits in a case where manifest abuse of institutional power by the US NSTA ans NAS is on the table speaks volumes.

I guess I can take your silence on the actual merits of fact and logic and resort to the rhetoric of polarisation and dismissal as plainly implying absence of a sound case on the merits.

Quite similar to the resounding silence in response to my pointing out critical flaws in the letter of the 4 + 496, at the beginning of the thread.

F/N: It seems that some objectors could do with a 101 primer on founding a worldview, in light of the turtles all the way down, vs turtles in a circle vs the last turtle has to stand somewhere problem. And in particular, they need to understand warrant on first plausibles and in light of comparative difficulties; leading to the conclusions that (i) reason and belief-commitments are inextricably intertwined in the roots of all worldviews, (ii) that theism is a reasonable faith, and (iii) by contrast -- through reduction to self-refuting incoherence (despite its vaunted "scientific" credentials and boasts of being the view of the truly intelligent and rational) -- evolutionary materialism is actually an UNreasonable faith. This may help, if some are at least willing to learn, and this will suffice to show why (iii) is correct -- particularly note Haldane and what that implies by extension. KF

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/